Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cobra Maneuver

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#91

Post by Kim_Bruning »

hatsunearu wrote: post #10

Unfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very limited. You'd have to be in very close range and in a very bad disadvantage, which honestly doesn't last long (you'd blow up very fast) and when you start decelerating you become a very easy target to hit. And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. Energy is the currency you spend to maneuv…

In a real dogfight, you're not constrained to just pitch. Your nose doesn't need to point straight up. Depending on your exact relative position, you could very well be able to input roll and yaw as well, and end up pointing your nose (and gun) in a rather more useful direction.

We can't really call the resulting maneuver a clean airshow version of the "Cobra" anymore; but that's OK: it's a bit more deadly!

The airshow version merely demonstrates the aircraft's abilities. An actual pilot practicing combat maneuvers creatively applies those abilities to an actual situation at hand.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#92

Post by justsomehnguy »

ninkendo wrote: post #77
TylerE wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fighter guns are fixed. You aim by pointing the whole airframe.

I think the operative question is, why must the guns be fixed? Wouldn’t it be useful for guns to be on turrets that can aim in other directions? We do it with helicopters (complete with automated aiming), and we used do it with bombers in WW2, after all. I’m sure the answer has to do with aerodynamics, and the general rarity of close-range dogfighting in the first place, that make such a design impractical.

> I’m sure the answer has to do with aerodynamics

The need for the fighters to have a good aerodynamic. Non-fighters and multi-role fighters have the gun pods.

https://www.weaponsystems.net/system/1049-HH13%20-%20SPPU-22

https://www.weaponsystems.net/system/567-SPPU-6

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#93

Post by 29athrowaway »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #91
hatsunearu wrote: post #10

Unfortunately the circumstances where this is useful is very limited. You'd have to be in very close range and in a very bad disadvantage, which honestly doesn't last long (you'd blow up very fast) and when you start decelerating you become a very easy target to hit. And after your opponent overshoots--you just lost a ton of energy--and energy is everything in aerial combat. Energy is the currency you spend to maneuv…

In a real dogfight, you're not constrained to just pitch. Your nose doesn't need to point straight up. Depending on your exact relative position, you could very well be able to input roll and yaw as well, and end up pointing your nose (and gun) in a rather more useful direction. We can't really call the resulting maneuver a clean airshow version of the "Cobra" anymore; but that's OK: it's a bit more deadly! The airsh…

Dogfights are an extinct scenario.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#94

Post by dmix »

29athrowaway wrote: post #93
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a real dogfight, you're not constrained to just pitch. Your nose doesn't need to point straight up. Depending on your exact relative position, you could very well be able to input roll and yaw as well, and end up pointing your nose (and gun) in a rather more useful direction. We can't really call the resulting maneuver a clean airshow version of the "Cobra" anymore; but that's OK: it's a bit more deadly! The airsh…

Dogfights are an extinct scenario.

Yep Russians will be dodging AMRAAM not dogfighting Vulcan guns, and Cobra doesn’t help much with that. Although the vector thrusting and braking that provide an aircraft the means to do Cobra might help against air-to-air and SAM/manpads.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM

Otherwise it’s just a pretty display at air shows.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#95

Post by giantrobot »

trevorishere wrote: post #81
bazillion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Top Gun 2, he uses it twice. Once, during the training dogfight where Rooster has a chance to shoot him down (he says, "Too late, you had your chance" and then pulls off the maneuver, targeting Rooster instead afterwards). After the training dogfight, he is told by Cyclone, "...and I don't ever want to see that Cobra shit again. That could have gotten you both killed". The second time was towards the end when they…

> flares Which do nothing for radar-guided SAMs... but pumping out chaff wouldn't be very visually impressive (if you could see it at all). And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar.

> And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar.

Well it should have been preceded by a Wild Weasel mission to take out the SAM radars and launchers. The Growler mission would just be extra SAM defense. There also should have been a counter-air element to deal with the enemy fighters flying CAP.

There was enough intelligence available for the mission every fixed SAM site should have eaten a couple Tomahawks in addition to the airfield. It's also a mystery why the whole facility wasn't just leveled by some B-2s loaded with GBU-37s.

There would have been fewer dog fights but that probably would have been ok.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#96

Post by 29athrowaway »

dmix wrote: post #94
29athrowaway wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogfights are an extinct scenario.

Yep Russians will be dodging AMRAAM not dogfighting Vulcan guns, and Cobra doesn’t help much with that. Although the vector thrusting and braking that provide an aircraft the means to do Cobra might help against air-to-air and SAM/manpads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM Otherwise it’s just a pretty display at air shows.

Or directed energy weapons.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#97

Post by trevorishere »

dmix wrote: post #94
29athrowaway wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogfights are an extinct scenario.

Yep Russians will be dodging AMRAAM not dogfighting Vulcan guns, and Cobra doesn’t help much with that. Although the vector thrusting and braking that provide an aircraft the means to do Cobra might help against air-to-air and SAM/manpads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM Otherwise it’s just a pretty display at air shows.

Of course this is a hypothetical now that we've seen how "well kept" Russian equipment is, but the R-37M will technically reach out and touch American aircraft long before the AMRAAM is in range.

Gotta wait for the AIM-260.

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#98

Post by trevorishere »

giantrobot wrote: post #95
trevorishere wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> flares Which do nothing for radar-guided SAMs... but pumping out chaff wouldn't be very visually impressive (if you could see it at all). And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar.

> And of course, the strike package would have been accompanied by the EA-18G Growler to jam SAM radar. Well it should have been preceded by a Wild Weasel mission to take out the SAM radars and launchers. The Growler mission would just be extra SAM defense. There also should have been a counter-air element to deal with the enemy fighters flying CAP. There was enough intelligence available for the mission every fixed…

Good point about the B-2. Does the Navy even perform Wild Weasel? That's usually the F-16's job and we can only "assume" that it was out of range of any USAF or collation airbase.

Of course, the country in question would have to be Iran due to the F-14... though the Felon hasn't been shipped outside (or inside of...heh) Russia.

And of course we come back to 'it's a movie' :-)

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#99

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

cm2187 wrote: post #59
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dumb question - why can't planes shoot in reverse? It seems like this would be useful for these situations. I get that it would be hard to aim - but can't computers do that?

I would imagine you need to install a second cannon. I think these days dogfights are fairly unlikely, jet fighters are more likely to shoot each others beyond the horizon with the advantage to the side with the missiles with the longest range. A second cannon is a lot of weight for a very remote use case.

But when you're in a disadvantage with conventional guns... if you had guns that could shoot from any direction - wouldn't you not be in a disadvantage anymore?

Re: Cobra Maneuver

#100

Post by mumblemumble »

Karellen wrote: post #87
pishpash wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a vacuum. The aerodynamics aren't possibly the same.

Surely the aerodynamics are better for firing a missile backwards. If you fire it forwards, the missile has to accelerate through whatever air resistance you're both already experiencing through even more air resistance to get to the target. That's hard. If you fire backwards, the missile uses air resistance to accelerate towards (i.e. slow down) towards the target. Even when it goes through 0mph relative to the air…

I would guess that the speed at which air moves over the missile's control surfaces has a large effect on its ability to steer to meet the target.
Post reply on HN